The Doyle Report: Will Robots and Artificial Intelligence Take Your Job?

Thanks to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, there is growing concern that technology will soon cost more workers their jobs. This includes many white-collar workers, who have not been displaced by technological innovation nearly to the extent that blue-collar workers have.

Between 2014 and 2015, nearly 200,000 tech jobs were added to the industry. Half of them, the report found, were added in the IT services sector.

The sheer number of workers employed in tech represents a good proxy as to the overall health of the sector, says CompTIA’s Tim Herbert, senor vice president of research and analysis.

Now for the (potential) bad news: thanks to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, there is growing concern that technology will soon cost more workers their jobs. This includes many white-collar workers, who, since the dawn of the industrial revolution, have not been displaced by technological innovation nearly to the extent that blue-collar workers have.

Could this soon change? Recent developments suggest it might. Consider these observations:

In The Digital Revolution, which was just published by Pearson Press, former Cisco SVP Inder Sidhu highlights the epiphany Jeopardy champ Ken Jennings had after unceremoniously losing a game of wits to IBM’s cognitive computer. (Okay, true confession, I was the ghost writer on this book so yes this is an obvious, shameless plug.)

Though Jennings had high hopes for the outcome, he was left speechless—literally—by the IBM machine, which never let Jennings get a word in edgewise. Afterwards, Jennings recognized the pivotal shift advances in artificial intelligence represent to white-collar workers. “What happens to society when hundreds of millions of people have that aimless, rudderless feeling of ‘I’ve been replaced by a very small box?’” he wonders in a Sundance documentary film from 2015.

In another indication of how far computers and artificial intelligence have come, consider this week’s story of the Google driverless car that caused an accident. This isn’t the first time that Google driverless car has been in an accident. Instead it’s the first time that a Google car was partially to blame. That’s what made headlines. It is also what makes thought leaders believe that we are inching ever closer to a time when driverless cars will be as common as battery-powered ones.

The advent of driverless cars still leaves unanswered what impact technology will have on jobs that require more critical and creative thinking. This week, The White House released its annual “Economic Report of the President.” In the report, the government addressed this very question. It concluded the following:

While industrial robots have the potential to drive productivity growth in the United States, it is less clear how this growth will affect workers. One view is that robots will take substantial numbers of jobs away from humans, leaving them technologically unemployed—either in blissful leisure or, in many popular accounts, suffering from the lack of a job. Most economists consider either scenario unlikely because several centuries of innovation have shown that, even as machines have been able to increasingly do tasks humans used to do, this leads humans to have higher incomes, consume more, and creates jobs for almost everyone who wants them. In other words, as workers have historically been displaced by technological innovations, they have moved into new jobs, often requiring more complex tasks or greater levels of independent judgment.

The good news therein is tempered by the realization that the rate of displacement is happening faster than ever. Consider: it took decades for saddle makers and carriage builders to adjust to the disruptive rise of the automobile. In contrast, travel agents had less than five years to rechart their careers after Expedia, Orbitz and other travel sites took hold. Financial planners? Mammography technicians? Once the software programmers get their algorithms right, these and many other jobs could disappear or change very in the relative blink of an eye.

Says who? How about Amanda Kahlow, CEO at 6sense, an AI-focused marketing firm. She made headlines last month at the MIT Technology Conference when she suggested that the white, all-knowing and powerful male decision maker at the helm of many companies could lose a lot of his luster to data-driven software applications.

The majority of the experts interviewed are concerned about the financial and economic harm that already exist but that may be exacerbated to extremes without a conscious plan to move forward, resulting in a range of risks from bigger gaps in wealth distribution to negative environmental effects, like pollution and resource exhaustion.

What do you think? Will tier one and tier two support jobs be displaced? What about sales and configuration jobs? Or, heaven forbid, higher-end consulting jobs?

Discuss this Article 3

Anonymous (not verified)

on Mar 3, 2016

The fundamental problem here is that our prevailing economic theories are firmly based on the concept of scarcity, and technological innovation creates conditions of abundance that eliminate scarcity and thereby break our economic models.

The problem of technology-driven unemployment is, at its root, the result of dogmatically applying scarcity models to situations where scarcity is being eliminated.

Technological innovations that make it possible for businesses to eliminate jobs also make it possible for amateurs, hobbyists, and other ordinary folks to make use of capabilities that were previously impossible for anyone other than businesses and billionaires.

One example: today, an ordinary family can buy a cheap camcorder, record their child's birthday party, and upload it to YouTube. Imagine if those technologies were not available, and a family's only option was to convince a Hollywood studio to produce the whole thing and release it in movie theaters. The idea that millions of ordinary families would be able to do this is absurd.

It's only the availability of these technologies that make such videos possible; and it would be absurd to deny these parents the right to record videos of their child's birthday on the argument that by doing so, they're putting professional actors, directors, and producers out of work. It would be equally absurd to outlaw YouTube on the argument that it denies movie theaters the right to profit from playing those birthday videos in their theaters.

You make a good point that digital innovation upends many models that depend on scarcity. The DIY home movie vs hiring Paramount Pictures is a lil out there though. Regardless, I'm for innovation and understand there's no turning against it. In the aforementioned book I co-wrote with Inder Sidhu, we concluded the following:

"Yes, there are significant challenges that this technology revolution will create.. there are immense concerns that we must address in the areas of privacy, security, and governance.

But imagine that we do. What kind of world will we end up with then?

As I see it, adding intelligence and connectivity to every object you can think of is going to make us smarter and more connected by design. This is a good thing for a multitude of reasons.

If you buy into the adage widely credited to physicist Albert Einstein that says we cannot solve our current problems with the same level of thinking that created them, then digital technology is the higher level of thinking that we have been pining for for decades. Imagine attacking deep-rooted societal problems such as crime, poverty, economic stagnation, environmental degradation, and more with better thinking.

Could we make gains against at least a few of these then?

Absolutely.

Today, we have already catalogued the world’s information; much of it is already available at our fingertips. And we are amassing new insights from the things we collectively add to the Internet by the minute. As time goes on, we are learning to better apply this knowledge. In practical terms, this means we will surely be able to provide greater access to education, better fight hunger, and increase economic opportunity for all. From there, is it really a stretch to say that we could eradicate most diseases, educate everyone, or reverse environmental degradation?

I believe these are possible certainly in our children’s lifetimes, if not in our own..."

As Robotic Process Automation, Intelligent Automation, Autonomics, (or whatever other term crops up), takes hold within IT shops, we are already seeing a movement toward reducing the number of tier 1 and 2 support personnel through automation.
Sometimes the goal is simply headcount reduction and other times a combination of up-skilling and cost reduction.

This is especially prevalent with Tier 1 service providers looking to reduce costs. Why? Because their clients are demanding it.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Advisors/Consultancies all have existing or developing practices in this area.
I haven't seen the movement in the VAR/Solution Provider community yet, but it can't be far behind once the enterprise community embraces automation.